Politics, some believe, is the organization of hatreds. The people who try to divide society on the basis of ethnicity we call racists. The people who try to divide it on the basis of religion we call sectarians. The people who try to divide it on the basis of social class we call either populists or elitists.

These two attitudes — populism and elitism — seem different, but they’re really mirror images of one another. They both assume a country fundamentally divided. They both describe politics as a class struggle between the enlightened and the corrupt, the pure and the betrayers.

Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue.

The Republicans have their populists. Sarah Palin has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites.

And the Democrats have their populists. Since the defeat in Massachusetts, many Democrats have apparently decided that their party has to mimic the rhetoric of John Edwards’ presidential campaign. They’ve taken to dividing the country into two supposedly separate groups — real Americans who live on Main Street and the insidious interests of Wall Street.

It’s easy to see why politicians would be drawn to the populist pose. First, it makes everything so simple. The economic crisis was caused by a complex web of factors, including global imbalances caused by the rise of China. But with the populist narrative, you can just blame Goldman Sachs.

Second, it absolves voters of responsibility for their problems. Over the past few years, many investment bankers behaved like idiots, but so did average Americans, racking up unprecedented levels of personal debt. With the populist narrative, you can accuse the former and absolve the latter.

Third, populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: That voters will get so furious at people with MBAs that they will hand power to people with PhDs. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with PhDs that they will hand power to people with MBAs. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.

So it’s easy to see the seductiveness of populism. Nonetheless, it nearly always fails. The history of populism, going back to William Jennings Bryan, is generally a history of defeat.

That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.

Political populists never get that second point. They can’t seem to grasp that a politics based on punishing the elites won’t produce a better-educated work force, more investment, more innovation or any of the other things required for progress and growth.

In fact, this country was built by anti-populists. It was built by people like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln who rejected the idea that the national economy is fundamentally divided along class lines. They rejected the zero-sum mentality that is at the heart of populism, the belief that economics is a struggle over finite spoils. Instead, they believed in a united national economy — one interlocking system of labor, trade and investment.

Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.

In their view, government’s role was not to side with one faction or to wage class war. It was to rouse the energy and industry of people at all levels. It was to enhance competition and make it fair — to make sure than no group, high or low, is able to erect barriers that would deprive Americans of an open field and a fair chance. Theirs was a philosophy that celebrated development, mobility and work, wherever those things might be generated.

The populists have an Us vs. Them mentality. If they continue their random attacks on enterprise and capital, they will only increase the pervasive feeling of uncertainty, which is now the single biggest factor in holding back investment, job creation and growth. They will end up discrediting good policies (the Obama bank reforms are quite sensible) because they will persuade the country that the government is in the hands of reckless Huey Longs.

They will have traded dynamic optimism, which always wins, for combative divisiveness, which always loses.

David Brooks writes a column for the New York Times.

As you comment, please be respectful of other commenters and other viewpoints. Our goal with article comments is to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem to be defamatory, rude, insulting to others, hateful, off-topic or reckless to the community. See our full terms of use here.

More in Opinion

Spring training has already sprung, thankfully so. What better time to whip up a yarn for those of us who believe baseball is still, culturally and historically if no longer at the box office, America’s true national pastime? Peter Gorton, a Staples, Minn., native and Twin Cities resident, reminds me of Ray Kinsella and Roy Neary, the fictional characters in...

The fellow running the NCAA bracket challenge, which I was invited to join, insisted that I could not submit my picks by mail. A photograph of me bent over the small print of the bracket in the newspaper was sent to him and he issued the order that I must enlist online, as had other members of what I gathered...

As an active, dues-paying member of the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists, I get a sizable discount at OfficeMax. I also get a gander at some sensitive discussions around government transparency, media literacy and an individual's right to privacy. A series of bills at the Minnesota state Capitol around open government have caught the attention of MNSPJ, as has a...

The recent airing of "data practices" and privacy questions involving east metro city governments is good for democracy. The pull and tug — concerning issues in Woodbury and St. Paul — is instructive as we consider our values when it comes to government transparency and the public’s right to know how our public officials are performing. The issue in Woodbury,...

Anthony Joseph Tenerelli -- Inmate No. 33344-112 at the federal prison medical facility lockup in Rochester, Minn. -- and I have something in common. We both have multiple myeloma, an incurable but sometimes treatable cancer. That’s about the only thing we share. I don’t have a rap sheet. He does -- multiple assault and criminal sexual conduct convictions dating back...

At George Mason University, where I teach, I regularly have lunch with a group of economists that includes a libertarian provocateur with an impish sense of humor named Bryan Caplan. Whether you agree with him or not (I usually don't), Bryan makes you think hard about what you believe and what you think that you know. Now he's is out...